Originally Posted by 338hammer
There has been a dialog for years regarding the merits of the 7 Mag vs the 300 mag from many including my best friend who carries a 7 Mag and always has. That discussion is no more when we put the two on a chony and he saw the 300 chewing up his 7 mag with the 300 using heavier bullets going much faster. He now carries a 375 Ultra and I carry a 338 Gibbs alternative in my handgun.
I've never heard anyone argue weather the 300 mag could shoot a heavier bullet faster than a 7mm mag. There's pleanty of reloading manuals that will give very specific information on velocities. What I've heard guys arguing about was long range ballistics and weather the 7mm had enough energy at extreme range. You'll notice the a .284" 168gr Berger has a BC of .643 and a bullet of the same weight in 30 cal by the same company has a BC of .512. but it can be fired at 3300+fps instead of 3000+fps for the 7mm mag. At closer ranges there would be no comparison in ballistics or energy, however long range ballistics (and long range energy) in this case would be in favor of the 7 mag. To get a simular BC out of the 30 cal (sticking with the same make of bullet) you'd have to step up to the 210gr with a BC of .631 (close enough to .643 for the sake of argument). The 210gr could shot fast enough to be real close ballistically, but at extreme range the 7mm would again have a slight advantage. This is where the arguments I've heard come from, wheather or not the 7 mag has enough energy (at what ever range) for what you're expecting the bullet to do. I don't mean to ramble I've just never heard of anyone being shocked by the fact that the 300 win mag can fire a heavier bullet faster than the 7mm mag, perhaps we're just running with different crowds.